fuck that. youd still have drunk drivers. they just got drunk secretly

[Edited on July 14, 2008 at 7:18 PM. Reason : ]

7/14/2008 7:18:12 PM

Quote :

"I had made the unfortunate aquaintance who went on to get 2 DUIs in one week."

I had an idiot former roommate who got a DUI at 9:30 in the morning...while driving to court for another DUI.

7/14/2008 8:53:00 PM

^ that is what you call rock bottom right there

7/15/2008 12:00:32 AM

Yeah, rehab quickly followed.

Sadly, the idiot's dad was a pretty well known judge, so none of his 3 DUIs ever stuck.

7/15/2008 12:04:36 AM

i had a friend that got pulled over and had a warrant served on him on his way to court. it was just over a missed court date for a speeding ticket, but it's never fun to be brought into your court appearance in handcuffs

7/15/2008 12:10:52 AM

Quote :

"why? in what possible world do you think he deserves decent or "fair" treatment of any kind? driving drunk is not an "oops" thing...if you're drinking, don't get in the fucking car in the first place...no one makes you do it...because of that, if something like this happens, you DESERVE to have your life ruined forever"

i don't know, maybe the world where you're supposedly innocent until proven guilty? otherwise, why don't we just return to the days of lynch mobs? i have no sympathy for this guy either if it turns out the way i think it will, but he still deserves a fair and unbiased (as possible) trip through the justice system like everyone else, even if it appears to be an open and shut case.

you also have no idea what circumstances are surrounding this guy's life that might have driven him to make such a poor decision. people are so quick to crucify in situations like this. take a step back, push your emotions back down, and approach the subject logically.

i'm all for freedom of the press, but sometimes i really wonder if it's such a good idea to give them such open access to high profile cases before they go to trial. cases are being played out in the general public and verdicts are reached before the person ever sets foot in a court room. i think it should go like this:

-media gets info that X crime has been commited. they also get any basic info like trial date, etc. that's it, nothing more. they get a slap on the wrist the first time the divulge extras, and more severe penalties follow.

-after the trial starts and jury selection is complete, they have free access to the court to cover things in their entirety. they're only removed for limited special scenarios, like a protected witness or something.

-then, at the close of the trial they can have their little party, mock trial, whatever. not before as it goes now.

fyi, this would be helping victims just as much to get their fair shot at justice.

pbmanis: i'll assume you missed my question now that you've posted since then. may i ask again what your daughter and her boyfriend were doing in raleigh that morning, where they were going, etc.? i mean no disrespect or accusations. i'm just curious to know since we know what the other guy was doing. thanks.

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 2:35 AM. Reason : i'll be VERY interested to see who defends this guy. our personal favorite, crouch? dement? or..?]

7/15/2008 2:33:59 AM

^ I agree. I don't think it's fair that the media is able to report so much. A relative of mine was murdered, and even though I was angry as hell at the people who did it, I didn't think it was right that the media started showing footage of where the people lived and crap. If anything it just prolonged the damn trial because their lawyer pushed for it to be tried in a different jurisdiction because of all the media coverage.

7/15/2008 7:15:06 AM

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3213942/

Quote :

"Morrisville, N.C. — Two drivers involved in two separate crashes at the same location were charged with DWI Wednesday morning, state troopers said. The crashes happened shortly after 3 a.m. on Interstate 40 East near I-540. Investigators say two vehicles were involved in the initial wreck. The driver of the car that caused the wreck is Angelica Wright. She was charged with DWI, troopers said. Another driver then hit Wright’s car. David Hodge was also charged with DWI. He was driving with a revoked license because of previous drunken driving incidents, troopers said. Hodge tried to run away, but authorities caught him."

7/16/2008 9:13:39 PM

Quote :

"you also have no idea what circumstances are surrounding this guy's life that might have driven him to make such a poor decision. people are so quick to crucify in situations like this. take a step back, push your emotions back down, and approach the subject logically."

I don't really give a shit what drove him to drink and drive (and I doubt that girl's family give a shit either, they would just rather have their daughter back). There is NO excuse for driving drunk. Plain and simple.

7/17/2008 4:14:36 AM

Quote :

"I had an idiot former roommate who got a DUI at 9:30 in the morning...while driving to court for another DUI."

I had a roommate who got a DUI after crashing into an ABC store. Then after another DUI and some court stuff, he had to do AA and some alcoholism class. He did the Hillsborough Hike the night before and showed up to the class drunk.

/true story

7/17/2008 4:25:34 AM

wow.

7/17/2008 5:08:25 AM

TO THE IDIOTS WHO WANT INTERLOCK DEVICES IN EVERY CAR:

"A nation who sacrifices liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

7/17/2008 5:25:44 AM

I have to put a key in the ignition to drive a car! OUTRAGE. I want the liberty to drive without having to put the key in.

7/17/2008 7:42:56 AM

you could rewire the ignition to do just that

7/17/2008 10:59:08 AM

How do interlock devices sacrifice liberty?

7/17/2008 11:19:11 AM

Quote :

"Deputies use checkpoints to teach teens about drunk driving Teens learn about drunk driving at checkpoints Posted: Today at 8:59 a.m. Updated: 46 minutes ago Raleigh, N.C. — Law enforcement agents used sobriety checkpoints to teach teenagers about the dangers of drinking and driving on Friday night. Approximately 60 officers from nine agencies conducted a checkpoint at Fayetteville and Legend roads in Wake County as part of the statewide "Booze It and Lose It" campaign. High schoolers and their parents were on hand to see officers arrest 11 people for driving while impaired and issue one felony and one misdemeanor drug charge. "It brings reality to the myth of drinking and driving," said Jack Lister, a Wake County public-school teacher and instructor with Jordan Driving School. "When they get out here and see what it looks like to be drunk, ... that has a real impact on a student's life." Gary Nagy, of Raleigh, brought his 16-year-old and 15-year-old sons and nephew, a college sophomore, to the checkpoint. Nagy said he hopes the experience shakes them out of any complacency about drunk driving. "I'm looking for this to shock them, so when they have to make that tough decision, I want them to make the right decision," Nagy said. Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison talked to the students, and a BATmobile, one of the state's six mobile breath-testing units, made an appearance at the checkpoint. When a drug dog made a hit in a car, Lister used it as a teaching moment. "Every time (an officer) pulls over a car, they take a risk," he told the teens. "Think about that just a second: If they do a traffic stop and they're out on the street by themselves, they never know what that car has got in it; you never know what an officer's going to run into." Agents issued 124 charges against 74 people, including 11 citations for driving with a revoked license, nine for driving without a license and one for carrying a concealed weapon. The Raleigh Police Department conducted a checkpoint at St. Mary's Street late Friday until 4 a.m. Saturday. The checkpoint netted nine arrests for DWI and 38 other charges, RPD spokesman Jim Sughrue said. State officials chose to launch the Labor Day "Booze It & Lose It" campaign Friday, because the date – 08.08.08 – served as a remind for the legal blood alcohol concentration – 0.08. Lister said a partnership with the Wake County Sheriff's Office has enabled him to bring students out to sobriety checkpoints nearly a dozen times. "It's made a difference from day one," he said. "I have students who have graduated and gone onto college, who come back and talk to me about how, 'That DWI traffic stop I went to changed my life. When the opportunity came and it was time for me to drive, I made a phone call and called a taxi instead of driving while impaired, because I've seen the things that can happen.'" Getting parents involved in such programs is also key to fighting drunken driving among teens and young adults, Lister said. "Education starts at home. .... When we start talking about drinking and driving, it has gone to be supported in the house," Lister said. "So when I bring parents out here, and they stand right beside their son and watch the checkpoint go on and see how it impacts people's lives, I think that's a tremendous impact in a child's life and in a parent's life." Nagy said that after bringing his oldest son to a checkpoint, he made sure that his younger son and nephew got the chance to see one in action. "(My nephew) is exposed to a lot of this, with a lot of college students, and I think it's a great lesson he can take back and share with his buddies of what he's going to experience tonight," Nagy said. Law-enforcement agents, educators and parents agreed that ultimately, the goal of the checkpoints is to save lives. "Drinking and driving affects everybody. .... We've lost quite a few students here in Wake County in the last three or four years," Lister said. Since April, six people have died in crashes involving alleged drunken drivers in Raleigh. In 2007, alcohol-related crashes killed nearly 500 people and severely injured more than 9,000 statewide. "At the end of the day, we want them (our children) to make good decisions, the one that's not going to impact them for the rest of their lives, but ... most importantly, not hurt someone else for the rest of their lives," Nagy said."

8/9/2008 6:00:56 PM

I saw a drunk guy plow into a parked car on Glenwood last week. Then he tried to run away on foot.

Needless to say it didn't work out well. He's in this week's copy of Slammer.

8/9/2008 6:50:48 PM

MY friend was at a grocery store in the middle of the day when a car plowed into a pick up truck. The driver promptly got out and said loudly "Who hit me???"

It was ridiculous, thank God no one was hurt.

8/9/2008 11:16:56 PM

Quote :

"bottom line is, there is no excuse for a person with 2 or 3 DUIs still having a license."

8/9/2008 11:30:22 PM

[Edited on August 10, 2008 at 2:35 AM. Reason : /]

8/10/2008 2:35:25 AM

Quote :

"RALEIGH - The Wake County Sheriff's Department and Raleigh police arrested 20 motorists on drunken-driving charges during their "08/08/08" checkpoint campaign that ended early Saturday. Law enforcement agencies across the state had publicized the crackdown, which capitalized on the parallel between the date and the blood-alcohol level 0.08, which is the legal definition of drunken driving. The Wake County Sheriff's Department set up a checkpoint at Fayetteville and Legend roads from late Friday night until 4 a.m. Saturday. Raleigh police worked the 300 block of St. Mary's Street. In addition to 11 DWI arrests, Wake deputies made one felony arrest on drug charges and a misdemeanor drug arrest, the sheriff's department said in a news release. Eleven motorists were charged with driving with revoked licenses, and one with carrying a concealed weapon. In all, the sheriff's office charged 74 people with 124 offenses, including license and inspection infractions. Raleigh police charged nine motorists with DWI and filed 38 other charges, police spokesman Jim Sughrue said. Results from a State Highway Patrol checkpoint were not available Saturday. "

8/11/2008 2:17:08 AM

Quote :

"You are drunk and therefore not making the best decisions. I am not making excuses for habitual drunk drivers, all I am saying is that history has shown us that we cannot expect human beings not to drive drunk."

I think THAT is a fallacy. I've been everywhere from buzzed to blind drunk and everywhere between, and I've never thought "well, I'm ok to drive" once I was past, say, 2 beers.

I've also never been mean when drunk, or gotten into a fight, or been more insulting than usual or had sex with someone I wouldn't have otherwise. Why? I think people are bullshitting and using being drunk as an excuse. If you're already an idiot, you can use alcohol as an excuse to do stupid things like driving drunk, but if you have half a brain, you should be able to know you're too drunk.

Quote :

"TO THE IDIOTS WHO WANT INTERLOCK DEVICES IN EVERY CAR: "A nation who sacrifices liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.""

I don't think Benjamin Franklin meant that people should be free to drive drunk. I don't know that there should be interlock devices in all cars, but I certainly don't think it would count as an affront to civil liberties. Perhaps there's a little projection going on here when you use the word IDIOT in CAPS?

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 10:08 AM. Reason : m]

8/11/2008 10:04:11 AM

would you look at that, the announced DUI checkpoints only busted 20 people

what a waste of money, and a terrible front for the war on drugs

8/11/2008 10:15:43 AM

^^your response to the first quote there is golden. took the words right out of my mouth 100%. its an excuse.

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM. Reason : ]

8/11/2008 10:16:05 AM

Quote :

"I've also never been mean when drunk, or gotten into a fight, or been more insulting than usual or had sex with someone I wouldn't have otherwise. Why? I think people are bullshitting and using being drunk as an excuse. If you're already an idiot, you can use alcohol as an excuse to do stupid things like driving drunk, but if you have half a brain, you should be able to know you're too drunk."

i have a full brain, and i've been mean, gotten into fights, insulted people, etc. ill fuck anyone though, so that was never an issue. HA HA.

normal americans aren't going to be able to look at this whole situation rationally until they realize that there are people among us who are mentally sick, and it's just impossible for them to a) stay away from alcohol, and b) make good decisions while under the influence.

i'm only halfway mentally fucked up, meaning i cant really control my behavior when smashed -- but i can say no and stay away. some people aren't that lucky, and it really took a lot of rehab before i was able to say no.

8/11/2008 10:24:51 AM

saying that EVERYONE ALWAYS uses being drunk as an excuse is honestly one of the dumbest things i've ever heard. it doesn't mean that people don't use alcoholism as an excuse, but it is an actual disease. it runs in families. that means its......dun dun dun GENETIC. not to mention addiction comes in all forms not just drugs and alcohol. and it often goes hand in had with mental illnesses. i mean the fact that we even have rehab and treatment programs and doctors who dedicate their entire careers to addiction shows that some people face the reality of being UNABLE to control their actions and addictions. and i don't know how you have been "blind drunk" and still strong enough to know 100% what you were doing. really, your statements are just infuriating and i could say a lot more, but i'll move onto this gem:

Quote :

"I don't think Benjamin Franklin meant that people should be free to drive drunk. I don't know that there should be interlock devices in all cars, but I certainly don't think it would count as an affront to civil liberties."

really ben franklin didn't mean that people should be free to drive drunk???? WOW thanks for clearing that up but i'm pretty sure the person that used ben franklin's statement re: civil liberties wasn't implying that he meant people should be free to drive drunk. and an interlock device in all cars would be an "affront" to civil liberties. whether right or wrong, helpful or not helpful, good or bad that is exactly what it is...an infringement on personal freedom. FREEDOM how are you free if you have something sitting there telling you when you can/cannot do something (regardless of what it is or if it should be telling you that). its NOT saying that driving drunk is a freedom. personal freedoms in general would be insulted by interlock devices.

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 2:42 PM. Reason : and i agree with ^ jackleg]

8/11/2008 2:41:57 PM

Quote :

"would you look at that, the announced DUI checkpoints only busted 20 people what a waste of money, and a terrible front for the war on drugs"

can i get an AMEN.

checkpoints are one of the most glaring government violations of the 4th amendment out there. oh, but lets get a few teachers and some goofy looking kids out there so it's all okay!!11

8/11/2008 5:52:31 PM

Quote :

"BOONTON, N.J. — A car door and a stack of personal papers left behind at an accident scene helped authorities in Morris County track down an alleged drunk driver. Boonton police said a 20-year-old woman struck a utility pole at about 4:30 a.m. Sunday, then drove off. Officers then responded to the scene and found the door of a 1996 Chevrolet Cavalier and several papers bearing the woman's name and address. A short time later, Denville police reported that the woman had crashed a 1996 Chevy Cavalier with a missing door into a stone wall about two miles farther down Valley Road. The woman, who was treated at an area hospital for minor injuries, faces charges of drunken driving, underage drunken driving and numerous motor vehicle violations."

8/12/2008 1:35:39 AM

I'm calling BS on the idiot saying alcohol doesn't cause judgment problems.

Checkpoints are BS too, they need probable cause to hold you against your will and demand ID at any other time. Yet when they set up a fuckyouoverpoint they pretty much demand whatever they want, shine their flashlights all through your car, put a drug dog on it, etc. That's bullshit IMO, it's a guilty until proven innocent approach.

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 3:55 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2008 3:54:54 AM

Quote :

"I think THAT is a fallacy. I've been everywhere from buzzed to blind drunk and everywhere between, and I've never thought "well, I'm ok to drive" once I was past, say, 2 beers."

After about 4 drinks in 1 hour I blow a 0.05.

Quote :

"it runs in families. that means its......dun dun dun GENETIC. not to mention addiction comes in all forms not just drugs and alcohol."

Or it's learned because... dun dun dun, you are usually raised in the household of your alcoholic parents.

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 8:46 AM. Reason : a]

8/12/2008 8:44:22 AM

Quote :

"Or it's learned because... dun dun dun, you are usually raised in the household of your alcoholic parents."

both of my grandfathers committed suicide from alcohol addiction. my mom was 8 years old and my father was 2. neither of my parents drink hardly at all.

my father is also is retired rescue with over 30 years of service (all volunteer) and he might drink a 6 pack a year. he does have a very addictive personality (nicotine - smoking [quit] / chewing [cant quit and has chewed for over 20 years off and on]

my mother just stays away from pretty much everything addictive. i have cousins that have battled addiction in many forms and none of my aunts/uncles are alcoholics

8/12/2008 9:14:03 AM

Quote :

"really ben franklin didn't mean that people should be free to drive drunk???? WOW thanks for clearing that up but i'm pretty sure the person that used ben franklin's statement re: civil liberties wasn't implying that he meant people should be free to drive drunk. and an interlock device in all cars would be an "affront" to civil liberties. whether right or wrong, helpful or not helpful, good or bad that is exactly what it is...an infringement on personal freedom. FREEDOM how are you free if you have something sitting there telling you when you can/cannot do something (regardless of what it is or if it should be telling you that). its NOT saying that driving drunk is a freedom. personal freedoms in general would be insulted by interlock devices."

It wasn't obvious that I was being sarcastic? Sorry about that. Also sorry that "insulting civil liberties" isn't unconstitutional, even if you were right that interlock devices would do that. They'd be inconvenient, but they'd do the job of preventing at least some drunk drivers from hitting the roads. They wouldn't prevent you from driving, unless you were too drunk to do so, which is the point at which your right to drive no longer exists... so I don't see a problem, except the minor inconvenience.

8/12/2008 9:44:47 AM

Interlock systems prevent you from driving if you have a hint of alcohol on your breath. Go to dinner and have a glass of wine? Too bad, you can't drive. Use mouth wash in the morning? Too bad you can't drive.

Furthermore, the way an interlock system works, you have to pull over every now and then and blow into the system. It does not matter where you are or how fast you are going. If you don't pull over your car shuts off.

Interlock systems in every car no matter what is a cure that is worse than the disease.

8/12/2008 11:20:53 AM

clearly a slight modification could be made.

8/12/2008 12:13:49 PM

clearly an unnecessary intrusion. What's next, cars refusing to start if the seat belt is not fastened?

Likewise, what is to prevent me from having the device removed from my car or made non-functional? There are far too many problems for the normal user of the automobile and too many ways around it to make mandatory interlocker systems public policy. It's bad policy from the get-go.

We need to face some facts, as long as there are automobiles and alcohol we will have drunk drivers. that is not to excuse the behavior, but we cannot go around thinking that we can find a remedy for this behavior. All you can do is educate.

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/12/2008 1:26:15 PM

Save me from the bad people, ma!

You people are fucking ridiculous, I can't believe anyone would even suggest something like mandatory Interlock.

8/12/2008 1:43:26 PM

^^^^^actually, infringing on personal freedoms is offensive to the constitution and american values in general. but okay, whatever you say. i think you kind of hit the nail on the head when you posted...though you didn't notice it. i'll give you a hint...your sentence that talks about preventing SOME drunk drivers sort of alluded to the point that you would be restricting ALL people for the sake of preventing SOME people from driving drunk. the seatbelt example was a good analogy. there are a lot of other harmful things you can do while drunk. you can operate other vehicles...bikes, scooters, motorcycles. hell, you can even be ridiculous while WALKING drunk. its a slippery slope, for one. and second, it doesn't really get to the root of the problem anyway which is alcoholism and poor decision making. two things that are car interlock system will not fix.

Quote :

"Or it's learned because... dun dun dun, you are usually raised in the household of your alcoholic parents. "

hahaha, yes that too. i was just using the genetics thing to illustrate that addiction and inability to control one's actions without substantial help actually DOES exist. which is contrary to what some users have posted.

8/12/2008 8:17:32 PM

Quote :

"it doesn't really get to the root of the problem anyway which is alcoholism and poor decision making. two things that are car interlock system will not fix."

ok

I do not give a shit if somebody else is an alcoholic and makes poor decisions, the problem lies in their ability to drink themselves oblivious and then plow in to me at 50mph.

A passive interlock device or BAC warning system could specifically prevent that.

8/12/2008 11:31:05 PM

Are you really that scared of drunk drivers?

Stop being a pussy.

8/13/2008 1:53:42 AM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON—According to a report released Monday by the National Institutes of Health, 93 percent of those who get behind the wheel while intoxicated arrive at their homes safe and sound, just like they told everybody they would. "Most of these people are barely even buzzed, and 87 percent of the time they're driving primarily on back roads for distances of like, eight miles, tops," said the study's lead author, Dr. Henry Tillman, adding that the vast majority of inebriated drivers stuck with only beer all night, so they were totally fine. "Roughly 64 percent of drunk drivers have cousins who are cops anyway, so it's really no big deal." The study concluded that a mere one in 15 drunk drivers end up dying in a cascading torrent of fire, so, you know, odds."

8/13/2008 8:20:38 AM

People can simply get someone else to blow into the tube with those BAC measuring devices. To require them on all cars is beyond stupid.

My friend worked at a shop and they had one customer who had like 5 cars. Some of them had the BAC thing in there (He got around having it in a few cars, at least for a while, by owning so many). My friend said that disabling it was incredibly simple and that they did in fact disable it when they worked on the car. He said nobody there was willing to put their mouth on that tube so they just disconnected it and then re-connected it when they were done. It was something as simple as cutting wires and splicing them together so as to bypass the "box."

[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 8:24 AM. Reason : ]

8/13/2008 8:23:43 AM

Quote :

"What's next, cars refusing to start if the seat belt is not fastened?"

That's obviously different, in that it infringes only on the rights of the individual to choose whether to make himself safe. It's entirely different when a device can prevent that individual from killing others by driving drunk. Surely you see the difference?

Also, let's make it clear that I'm arguing against the philosophical question of interlock devices being somehow an infringement of rights. I'm not arguing for or being a real proponent of the idea, and obviously there are tons of technical difficulties (and the multiple ways to bypass the devices). None of those make the devices somehow an encroachment on freedom.

[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM. Reason : .]

8/13/2008 11:55:33 AM

It is a violation of my right to privacy.

8/13/2008 1:22:49 PM

you don't have a right to privacy.

8/13/2008 1:50:00 PM

4th amendment baby.

8/13/2008 1:53:25 PM

how do you define requiring a breathalyzer as a search and seizure issue?

8/13/2008 2:02:26 PM

Quote :

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"

4th amendment is more than just search and seizure.

If we do place these interlock systems in every car, what happens that time I blow into the device and it ocks me out? That's all recorded. It removes my privacy.

8/13/2008 2:19:57 PM

very good.


but, who says that it will be recorded? whats the need to have it be recorded?

if I try to start my car with the wrong key, it doesn't work, but that act is not recorded.

8/13/2008 2:26:47 PM

That's how those systems work. They record your BAC and keep a log of it.

8/13/2008 2:27:59 PM

^ The court mandated ones work like that (as they should).

The skin testers that I am proposing could be embedded in steering wheels would not have to. They would not have to do anything but buzz or cut off the car when the operator is drunk.

That way if someone was so shitface they had no idea what was going on the car would at least warn them they were about to kill themselves or get arrested, and hopefully give the intoxicated person an oppertunity not to make a life altering mistake.

My girlfriends mountaineer beeps bloody murder whenever you do not have your seatbelt on. It will worry the living shit out of you. I could easily disable this by cutting one wire, or write a page long article about how it infringes on my right to do something stupid (drive with no seatbelt).

Instead I just buckle the seatbelt so it will stop beeping. I mean if you think about it, that is way easier than getting thrown from a car in a high speed crash. That is one system that no matter how easy it would be to outsmart, I would only be fucking myself by doing it....

8/13/2008 3:23:48 PM